Hello,
This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate,
Sorry for this empty mail. Here is my question
:
I'm working for a project where we plan to
migrate our OSfrom AIX 4.3 (32 bits) to AIX 5.2 (64 bits).
We use some OpenSSL C libraries to implement DES
encryption/decryption.
I'm trying to figure out what would be the impact
I have been trying to renew a certificate geterated for signing emails.
The renew goes ok. first revoke old one then resign req with new end date
etc. and I can use the new certificate ok.
However if I try and open an old email sent from home using my old
certificate to sign it - I can't Outlook
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been trying to renew a certificate geterated for signing emails.
The renew goes ok. first revoke old one then resign req with new end date
etc. and I can use the new certificate ok.
However if I try and open an old email sent from home using my old
certificate to
In a larger application (Qt Cryptographic Architecture), I'm trying to
wrap some OpenSSL crypto primitives in C++. However I'm having
a problem with EVP_DecryptUpdate(). I've done up a quick'n'dirty
test case, see below. Now for EVP_EncryptUpdate, this gives me
16. But for EVP_DecryptUpdate(), it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been trying to renew a certificate geterated for signing emails.
The renew goes ok. first revoke old one then resign req with new end date
etc. and I can use the new certificate ok.
However if I try and open an old email sent from home using my old
certificate to
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004, Brad Hards wrote:
In a larger application (Qt Cryptographic Architecture), I'm trying to
wrap some OpenSSL crypto primitives in C++. However I'm having
a problem with EVP_DecryptUpdate(). I've done up a quick'n'dirty
test case, see below. Now for EVP_EncryptUpdate, this
I am on my way to learn more about OpenSSL. My current task is to create
a script, similar to CA.pl, to ease cert handling.
Ideally I would want to have one config file, holding different values
for a CA cert, a server cert and a client cert separated by sections.
This would require to have (at
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
I am on my way to learn more about OpenSSL. My current task is to create
a script, similar to CA.pl, to ease cert handling.
Ideally I would want to have one config file, holding different values
for a CA cert, a server cert and a client cert
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The link that outlook appears to use is the serial number, if it does not
find a certificate with the same serial number as the one in the message
it will not find the private key to decrypt the message.
This is part of the S/MIME v2 (PKCS#7)
* Dr. Stephen Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041116 00:45]:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
I am on my way to learn more about OpenSSL. My current task is to create
a script, similar to CA.pl, to ease cert handling.
Ideally I would want to have one config file, holding
Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
Well unless the software provides a means to reencrypt with a new certificate
the only way is to keep the old certificates and private keys on the system.
soapbox
This is something I noticed before too - and appears to be a real
failing with PKI. Although by failing I
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
To clarify my second question: Can I put config options for a CA,
server and or client certificate in a single config file and have certs
built automatically?
I haven't understood yet how sections work exactly. I understand they
subsume
Hi all,
I hava a doubt regarding X509_verify_cert.
What I understand from the documentation of verify is that we need to
pass all the trusted certs and all the un-trusted certs.
X509_verify_cert will construct the cert chain upto the ROOT CA and then
validates the chain and finally verify the
Jason Haar wrote:
soapbox
This is something I noticed before too - and appears to be a real
failing with PKI. Although by failing I mean not what end-users
expect...
Let's assume the whole world has embraced PKI and everyone is
sending/receiving S/MIME encrypted e-mails. How are we (as a
15 matches
Mail list logo
